Pride Goeth Before a Fall

by Daniel Farber

January 10, 2020

Originally published on Legal Planet. Reprinted with permission.

The White House just released its proposed revisions to the rules about environmental impact statements. The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) simply does not have the kind of power that it is trying to arrogate to itself. Its proposal is marked by hubris about the government's ability to control how the courts apply the law.

That hubris is evident in the proposal's effort to tell courts when lawsuits can be brought and what kind of remedies they can provide. For instance, it states that issuance or refusal to issue an impact statement does not trigger the right to go to court, that no claim can ever be raised in court unless it was first raised by the agency, and that lawsuits must be always be brought quickly. Some of these might be right, some might not be, but all of them are up to the courts – not the White House – to decide.

The proposal also contains a discussion of how much deference it should receive from the courts, suggesting that it should receive Chevron deference.  As I explained previously, this seems to be flatly wrong:

"Congress never gave CEQ authority to issue binding regulations or to do anything else except issue advice. That means that CEQ's rules are not entitled to what courts call "Chevron deference," which would require courts to accept the CEQ position if it's reasonable. Instead, CEQ's rules can get only Skidmore deference. That means that courts should give a CEQ rule weight based on the "merit of its writer's thoroughness, logic, and expertness, its fit with prior interpretations, and any other sources of weight." This seems consistent with the Supreme Court's more specific statement, issued a decade before the Court clarified standards of deference, that an amended CEQ regulation is entitled to "substantial deference" if it there is a "well considered basis for the change."

Thus, it is up to the courts to decide whether the White House's arguments for changing the interpretation of the law are persuasive. Apparently, the White House thinks that it, not the courts, has the power to decide what the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) means and how courts should enforce it. If so, it's overestimating its authority badly.

Be the first to comment on this entry.
We ask for your email address so that we may follow up with you, ask you to clarify your comment in some way, or perhaps alert you to someone else's response. Only the name you supply and your comment will be displayed on the site to the public. Our blog is a forum for the exchange of ideas, and we hope to foster intelligent, interesting and respectful discussion. We do not apply an ideological screen, however, we reserve the right to remove blog posts we deem inappropriate for any reason, but particularly for language that we deem to be in the nature of a personal attack or otherwise offensive. If we remove a comment you've posted, and you want to know why, ask us (info@progressivereform.org) and we will tell you. If you see a post you regard as offensive, please let us know.

Also from Daniel Farber

Daniel A. Farber is the Sho Sato Professor of Law and Director of the California Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at the University of California, Berkeley.

Misunderstanding the Law of Causation

Farber | Jan 13, 2020 | Regulatory Policy

Pride Goeth Before a Fall

Farber | Jan 10, 2020 | Regulatory Policy

A Continent on Fire Ignores Climate Change

Farber | Jan 06, 2020 | Climate Change

The Decade in Review

Farber | Dec 23, 2019 | Climate Change

2019 in Renewable Energy

Farber | Dec 09, 2019 | Energy

The Center for Progressive Reform

2021 L St NW, #101-330
Washington, DC. 20036
info@progressivereform.org
202.747.0698

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015